though for any 'recoil' on such a platform... could orbital position be used to compensate? i.e. drop from a higher orbit to a lower orbit, then use a propulsion system to slowly bring it back up to a firing orbit? don't know enough about orbital mechanics myself, so i figured i'd ask

I don't know enough either to be certain but what i was suggesting above was that if say your linear accelerator was orbiting lined up east-west around the equator you alternate "firing" it east-west and west-east and if your objective was the moon then you "fire" it when the tangent points to the moon which would be more or less on opposite sides of the planet for the 2 different ways of "firing". I think on average this would keep your linear accelerator in the same orbit but i think may add a precession to the linear accelerator hence the suggestion of gyroscopes.

_________________Someone has to tilt at windmills.So that we know what to do when the real giants come!!!!

though for any 'recoil' on such a platform... could orbital position be used to compensate? i.e. drop from a higher orbit to a lower orbit, then use a propulsion system to slowly bring it back up to a firing orbit? don't know enough about orbital mechanics myself, so i figured i'd ask

I don't know enough either to be certain but what i was suggesting above was that if say your linear accelerator was orbiting lined up east-west around the equator you alternate "firing" it east-west and west-east and if your objective was the moon then you "fire" it when the tangent points to the moon which would be more or less on opposite sides of the planet for the 2 different ways of "firing". I think on average this would keep your linear accelerator in the same orbit but i think may add a precession to the linear accelerator hence the suggestion of gyroscopes.

That's a nice idea but I don't think it would work in practice, for two reasons. The first reason is that one of your suggested firing positions would require much more force to achieve escape velocity since you are firing backwards, and your orbital velocity would be subtracted from the firing velocity. The other firing position requires less force since you can add the orbital velocity to the firing velocity to get to escape velocity.

The second reason is that I think combining these firing positions would alter the shape of the orbit, in effect de-circularising it. The orbit would gradually become more elliptical with a lower perigee and a higher apogee until eventually your orbit was passing through the atmosphere.

I hope I'm wrong about these problems, or there is a way to get around them, because I really like your idea. Perhaps the de-circularising effect could be avoided by firing payloads to the moon at 14 day intervals, when it is on opposite sides of the Earth. If the cannon had enough power to overcome the problem of firing in reverse, against the orbital direction, then the other problem might go away too. Of course, an enormous capacitor bank would be required to fire any kind of significant payload out of Earths orbit.

I am not a scientist and I am not a student at some university, but please allow me to give my input on the subject. Prove/Disprove three theories:

There are three theories that must be proven and or disproved if this project is to be successful. They are called London’s Theory’s I, II and III. The theories are concentrated to describe a closed system’s ability to maintain a controlled and stabilized friction environment in a non-frictionless setting. These theories prove that friction can be produced and focused into a direction that will yield momentum to an object that is in contact with its closed system frictional-field of lobes.

London’s Theory I states, a closed system having the properties and characteristics of a Frictional-Field(F2) of Magnetic Lobes(ML) or (F2ML)cs in a Frictional-Field(F2) of Electromagnetic Impulses(EI) or (F2EI) in free space will produce momentum for that Frictional-Field Electromagnetic Impulses(F2EI) in free space, if, and only if, (F2EI) forces yield a lesser field of force than that of the forces being encountered from the (F2ML)cs.

London’s Theory II states, two objects (F2EI)1 and (F2EI)2 having the same properties and characteristics of each other and are being accelerated by an object having the properties and characteristics of (F2ML)cs, in free space, can cancel momentum for the object (F2ML)cs in free space if, and only if, (F2EI)1 and (F2EI)2 encounter the same (F2ML)cs at the same time stamp and are being accelerated on the same line vector, but having opposite direction of the other. ____ ____(F2EI)1 + (-F2EI)2 = 0 ; (they cancel each other out)

Where (F2EI)1 equals acceleration in the positive direction of the vector and(-F2EI)2 equals acceleration in the negative direction of the vector.

London’s Theory III states, two objects (F2EI)1 and (F2EI)2 having the same properties and characteristics of each other and are being de-accelerated by an object having the properties and characteristics of (F2ML)cs in free space can cancel momentum for the object (F2ML)cs1 in free space if, and only if, (F2EI)1 and (F2EI)2 encounter the same (F2ML)cs at the same times stamp and are being de-accelerated on the same line vector, but having opposite direction of the other.

Idunhal, is there a place where i can look this up. i'm not saying I don't believe you, I just want to see if i can find some visual representations of these theories. Its a bit early still and my brain doesnt want to wrap around E&M at the moment

Johno, what if instead of trying to avoid de-circularizing the orbit, a higher-order eliptical orbit was used intentionally. This is just shooting from the hip here, but what if the orbit was set up in such a way, that the accellerator was fired at the apogee. Supposedly this would have an effect of slowing the accellerator down,(the firing that is) and if it was done right, could the accellerators 'fall' to a lower orbit be used to sling it back out to that apogee for another shot?

though now that i think about it, you'd either have to be doing a shot once every orbit or find a way to bring it out to a point to fire, drop the orbit, and recircularize without slamming it into something else... like the earth

as for the capacitors...lol yeah they'd likely have to be quite large... but considering that a launch wouldn't be happeneing often (1-2 a month maybe?) and considering the size it would be, solar would probably work, as the power could be gathered over a period of time. Storage capacity i dont see as being nearly as big of a problem as discharge rate and current loading issues.

Marcus, I'll check out that youtube link when i get home, (yay work firewalls...lol) I think i've heard of those before... very interesting concept. So many sneaky ways to get around the Solar System just got to be able to think creative and dig deep.

The world's most powerful supergun.15:01 14 December 2010 "A gun the size of a bus has set a new world record, and fired its payload so fast it broke the speed of sound seven times over. The railgun was fired by the Office of Naval Research in Dahlgen, Virginia, on Friday 10 December and has caused a stir with gadget geeks and sci-fi lovers. In fact, the majority of people who know anything about railguns have probably seen them in sci-fi films or video games."http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/nstv/ ... ergun.html

The Navy is taking an incremental approach to its development since in 2008 they had a lower energy launcher able to achieve Mach 7 but at a smaller mass:

The best use of this for space purposes would be to launch cargo and propellant to space. Mach 7 is about 2000 m/s. Cutting off this much from the required delta-V of a rocket would allow it to be single stage to orbit after the rail gun launch.

The weight of the projectile was 10 kg. The second article gives the speed more accurately as Mach 7.5. Interestingly this second article says this test had 3.3 times the energy of the 2008 test, but the extra energy went to accelerating a heavier projectile, not to increasing the speed. Since energy scales as the square of the velocity this suggests that if they kept the same smaller mass projectile they could have accelerated it to sqrt(3.3)*Mach 7.5 = Mach 13.6, or about 4,500 m/s. (The Mach speed depends on temperature and water vapor content. I'm using the conversion given here: http://www.sciencelab.com/data/conversi ... sion.shtml)

Or if you wanted to use it to get to orbital velocity of 7,800 m/s using the same energy, this would be an additional increase in the speed by a factor of 7800/4,500 = 1.733. To get this using the same amount of energy would require a smaller mass projectile by a factor of 1.73^2 = 3. So if say, the 2008 projectile was 3 kg, you could get orbital speed with a 1 kg projectile. As a practical matter however, you would lose a great deal of speed when launching from the ground at this great initial speed due to air drag, not to mention the extreme heating problem arising from having orbital velocity at ground level, considering the heating is already significant when entering the tenuous atmosphere present at orbital altitude. You would not have this problem if launching from the Moon. Interestingly, the current installation being able to achieve a 2,400 m/s velocity with a 10 kg projectile means it would suffice for launching small cargo or propellant to low lunar orbit from the lunar surface since the delta-V required is 1,870 m/s: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-v_bu ... Moon_space. And at a slightly smaller mass, about 7.6 kg, it could launch it to the required delta-V to reach low Earth orbit, about 2,740 m/s with aerobraking. This is significant since the biggest bottle neck to getting low cost transport to the Moon is the cost of just getting the propellant to LEO. By continual launching of small amounts of propellant we could build up to having orbital propellant depots.

Bob Clark

_________________Nanotechnology now can produce the space elevator and private orbital launchers. It now also makes possible the long desired 'flying cars'. This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it:

New idea, Many large torus shaped lifting bodies connected by insulating cables. By electrically charging the torus they could repel each other, by coating these rings in a hot electron absorbing solar cells that could slowly charge a capacitor. Enhancement via laser beemed power is another option, each ring would deliver magnetic acceleration independently to a magnetically and scramjet powered ship. Another idea would be to use the electric current potentiality of the upper ionosphere and the earth troposphere etc.

_________________Let not the bindings of society hold you back from improving it.... the masses follow where the bold explore.

_________________Say, can you feel the thunder in the air? Just like the moment ’fore it hits – then it’s everywhereWhat is this spell we’re under, do you care? The might to rise above it is now within your sphereMachinae Supremacy – Sid Icarus

Very cool short story, what I was proposing was a from ground launch up through the rings, but a high altitude launch would negate many signifigant issues, one could have the launch vehicles floated up on lighter then air vehicles to the platform.

_________________Let not the bindings of society hold you back from improving it.... the masses follow where the bold explore.

Thanks for that. I'll have an upcoming blog post that shows railguns to orbit are doable now, at least for small payloads. This could be used for example to launch propellant to orbit at low cost for propellant depots.

Bob Clark

_________________Nanotechnology now can produce the space elevator and private orbital launchers. It now also makes possible the long desired 'flying cars'. This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it:

The drawback to a train to space launch system is the length and cost of the track. Maybe run the space vehicle around a big circular track until it is going fast enough to switch it to a launch ramp? Or start high and go downhill to pick up speed fast?

The "problem" as you say, with the track costing money is actually a good bet compared to single use rocket infrastructure because the track can be fired over and over, with no chemicles or bi-products.

I am now thinking a ship could use maglev energy to achieve near escape velocity at ground level, by trapping a ball of plasma from the heat shield and insulating the craft. However a very dense power supply would allow the craft to accelerate using the heat shield plasma as propellant.

_________________Let not the bindings of society hold you back from improving it.... the masses follow where the bold explore.